Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I have an amendment. I would be happy to introduce it now and you can stack it as well.

Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, I know there are two or three amendments in line.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. D'Amato), the Senator from Oklahoma, (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) is necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, not seeing any other Senators on the floor who wish to speak on this issue, I will yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays on the resolution.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, I said just a few minutes ago I thought there would be a vote at 6 o'clock. In just a moment I will be yielding back the time and we will have the rollcall vote immediately. Staffs might indicate that to their Senators. We will have the vote in just a couple of minutes. I thank and compliment Senator Dodd of Connecticut because he likewise was working on a resolution. This resolution was an effort by several of us who felt we needed to express condemnation towards the outrageous behavior of Mr. Milosevic. Senator Dodd had a resolution, I had a resolution, others were working on them, so we had a good bipartisan effort so the Senate would speak in an united fashion condemning these recent actions. I thank him for his support.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this resolution is a bipartisan resolution which several of us have worked on for the last few days. I thank my friends and colleagues, particularly Senator Lieberman, who worked on this, Senator Levin, Senator Biden, and other colleagues, Senator Lott and his staff. We wanted to speak out strongly and condemn the atrocities that have happened recently in Kosovo, not condemning the Serbian people but, frankly, condemning the Serbian leadership and primarily that of Mr. Milosevic. The killings that have happened recently, which culminated in the loss of life of at least 60 people including women and children who were slaughtered by their special police forces, are an atrocity. It needs to be condemned, and we need united action. This resolution condemns the slaughter, it condemns the atrocities that have happened recently, and it also calls upon the United States and the world community to act together to take action to see that it does not happen again. The administration was in the process of actually reducing sanctions to the Serbian Government, to Mr. Milosevic. They have now postponed lifting those sanctions. We also in this legislation say that the United States should freeze funds of the Governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia if the Government of Serbia fails to comply by March 25, 1998, with the terms set forth by the contact group. I think that will have some impact. I think that will get his attention. He has been a very difficult person to deal with. Some of us have met with Mr. Milosevic. I met with him in 1990, along with Senator Dole, Senator Mack, and others. And I will not forget this individual. We wanted to visit Kosovo. We did visit Kosovo. But I remember Mr. Milosevic didn't want us to visit Kosovo, and he went to great lengths to see that we wouldn't go, but we did go. We were greeted by thousands of individuals, mostly Albanians, who wanted to see us and also express to us their desire to have some degree of autonomy, their desire to have some degree of freedom, which was being denied to them at that time by the Serbian leadership, denied in many, many forms--denied in the press, denied in employment; they were persecuted; they were prosecuted; they were harassed. And we have known ever since then that this area had the potential to explode and to cause significant pain and carnage for a lot of innocent people. So, Mr. President, this resolution which has overwhelming bipartisan support I hope will extend a good, strong signal to the Milosevic government that they need to join the community of nations, they need to stop ethnic cleansing now. They need to stop ethnic cleansing now. I think there is strong support, not only for this statement, not only for the sanctions that are called for in this legislation, but I hope across the international community there will be an outrage expressed if there is not a change in behavior by the Milosevic government. I thank my colleagues for their support for this resolution. I understand--I believe, just for the information of our colleagues, that we expect to vote on this resolution at 6 o'clock, and I hope we will have a unanimous vote as well. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to join with my colleagues, Senator Lieberman, Senator Biden, and others who have spoken in favor of this resolution. I apologize for being detained. The Budget Committee is in a markup, and we had several votes, so I was not able to be here. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following individual Senators be added as cosponsors: Senators Kerrey, D'Amato, Kyl, Abraham, Grams, Wellstone, and Inhofe.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I was. I put 100 percent of my thrift plan in, and it made a 40 percent return. For the S&P index for those months, which included September 30, it was a 34 percent rate of return, a phenomenal rate of return. It was a lot less for Government bonds. There are three different options for Federal employees. They all made significant returns far greater than the 1 or 2 percent that a person can make in Social Security today. So we can allow those accounts to accumulate and grow and allow people to become entrepreneurs and to achieve some real savings and also lessen their dependence on Social Security at the same time. Senator Moynihan also had the nerve to say--I think he said, that we should have, an accurate CPI. Again, a lot of people do not want to touch that. But we should have an accurate CPI. If we have a balanced budget or if we have a surplus or a deficit, we should have an accurate CPI. And, yes, there are significant savings in that proposal as well. He talked about some other things, talking about increasing the retirement dates. That is not real popular maybe with a lot of people, but, frankly, you have to look at the actuarial analysis of Social Security. Social Security has big, big problems. Although i have some reservations, I think my colleague from New York has taken some giant steps in the right direction. I understand there is a little tax increase on the personal income tax side. I would like to see if we can do it without that. Transitionally we may have some challenges. I would very much like to get the percentage up from 2 percent. Actually, right now an individual pays 12.4 percent of their payroll for Social Security up to $68,000, $68,400, I believe. I would like to be able to get half of that into an individual's personal savings account where they can really see some rewards. That is over $9,000 that an individual, if they make $68,000, is paying in Social Security today. It would be nice if they could put half or at least a significant portion of that into their own retirement account where they can watch it grow, where they can invest it. They could be very cautious in their investments and invest it in T bills if they so desired or invest it in stocks or they can invest it in bonds. They would have those options. I would like to give them the maximum amount of options that we give people for 401(k)s, that we give people for IRAs, that we give Senate employees through thrift plans and so on. I would like to give all American taxpayers that option so we can have a lot of millionaires, a lot of people driving a truck in Nebraska or Oklahoma becoming millionaires by the time they retire so they will not become dependent, frankly, on an unfunded pay-go system like we have right now into which their children will be paying enormous sums in the future. I think you hear a lot of people trying to sell programs by using kids. I think we need to be very, very concerned about future liabilities in Social Security for our kids. How in the world will they be able to make those payments if we do not reform the system? Senator Moynihan had a chart out there that said the payroll tax would have to go up astronomically. I do not think that is fair for our kids. Maybe we can alleviate that pressure if we allow individuals now, before they hit their retirement age, to be able to set up these personal savings accounts and be able to reap decent rates of return and become less dependent on their children and grandchildren for their future retirement benefits. Conceptually, I commend my colleagues on their work, and I think you will find strong bipartisanship support for working together to see if we cannot make this concept of making funded capitalized personal savings accounts a part of every individual's Social Security for the future. We will work to try to make that a reality in America. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my colleagues, Senator Moynihan and Senator Breaux and Senator Kerrey, for the introduction of this legislation. I am not joining as a cosponsor now, but I certainly want to sponsor and echo the comments that they made that we need to reform Social Security and we need to move Social Security away from a pay-go system into a funded system, a capitalized system, a system that has an investment behind it, one that people get to own and control and can invest in. They have taken a small step in that direction. As I understand it, the proposal would allow 2 percent of the 12.4 percent to go in that direction, either to be returned in the form of a tax cut or to be put into a personalized savings Social Security account. I echo very strongly that right now we should depart from an unfunded system, a pay-go system, a system that is destined for bankruptcy unless we change it, unless we save it--and a lot of us are very committed to saving Social Security. We think the real way to save Social Security is to move it into a funded system. Private plans have been doing that all across the country. They are allowing individuals, participants in their plans, to reap the benefits and rewards of good investments. I heard my colleague--I think Senator Breaux mentioned that if a Federal employee had invested 100 percent in the stock option plan last year, the rate of return was 40 percent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Faircloth), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Faircloth), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Yes, 4.3.

Mr. NICKLES. That is true.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I compliment my colleagues from Florida for this amendment. I wish to be made a cosponsor of this amendment and ask unanimous consent to be made a cosponsor.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I also compliment my colleague, Senator Warner from Virginia, for his leadership on this. Senator Baucus, Senator Graham, Senator Byrd, Senator Chafee--a lot of people--worked a long time on this bill. I hope we can finish this bill today. If not today, certainly this week. This is an important piece of legislation. The reason why I cosponsored the amendment of my colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, is because I happen to think he is right. I know a lot of work has been going into allocations. The Senators managing this bill have been bending over backwards to be fair to every Senator. I think they have been doing the best job they can and I compliment them on their work. But I happen to think Senator Mack is right. Should the gasoline tax be a prerogative of the State or the Federal Government? Should we all as colleagues have to bend and beg and plead? I do not really like doing that. I don't like asking for money in appropriations. I have done it on occasion. Senator Byrd has accommodated me on occasion when he was chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Sometimes Senator Stevens has. I appreciate that. But I really do not enjoy that nor do I enjoy, when we have a highway bill, saying, ``Oh, please, we need more money. We are not doing very well in this bill. We are not doing as well as I hoped.'' We happen to be a donor State. I know Virginia has been. I know Florida has. I know a lot of States have. We don't like it. We don't like sending a dollar to Washington, DC, and getting 80 cents back in return. Unfortunately, that has happened year after year after year. We are talking about a lot more money. I heard on the floor discussions: Senator Warner is going to get 50 percent more, 52 percent. So is Oklahoma. It's a lot more money compared to the last 6 years, a lot more money to our States. Every one of our contractors is going to be delighted with this bill. They have been knocking on my door: Please pass this bill. They maybe don't get involved in should we be donors or should we not. My thought, though, is this tax really should belong to the States. I do read the Constitution. The Constitution and the 10 amendments say all the rights and powers are reserved to the States and to the people. Shouldn't we allow the States to have the prerogative to have a gasoline tax and spend it the way they want? Then we don't have to fight and beg and plead and say, ``Hey, wait, I want 90 cents of my dollar back.'' If I do really good, I will get 90 cents on the dollar back. You lose 10 percent off the top. Not all States lose 10 percent; some States do better than other States. I guess that is the way it is always going to be when you have a national program. Our State does not qualify as a dense State. That applies to some big States. There is a dense State formula in here that helps some States. Our State doesn't qualify for the Appalachian Regional Commission. I know some States do. There is a bonus provision. Maybe we do--no, we didn't qualify for that. We get a little something. My point being you have to beg, cajole, and plead. Maybe you come up with 90 cents, but that is 90 cents on 90 cents. My math is not always accurate, but sometimes it's fast, and 90 percent of 90 percent is about 81 cents. I have seen one chart that says we will come out with about 82 cents, maybe 83 cents. The point being, you send $1 to Washington, DC, and in return you lose maybe 17, 18 percent before it gets back to the State. Then, as Senator Mack mentioned, when it comes back, there are a lot of strings. It's not quite as simple as, ``Here, States, you get your money back. You can have the 82 cents or 90 cents or whatever and you can spend it as you wish.'' That is not the case. There are lots of strings. You have little requirements like you have to meet Davis- Bacon. You have to meet a lot of other requirements, Federal highway standards and so on. Guess what. A lot of these roads are not Federal highway roads or they are not part of the interstate system. The interstate system is, by and large, complete. It needs a lot of maintenance, I guess, but certainly that could be maintained without this 4.3 cents per gallon. In my State of Oklahoma, the legislature has already passed legislation, already the law of the land. If the Federal Government does not extend the 4.3 cents, or if we repeal it, that tax increase goes on automatically for our State. So there will not be any loss of income. The State is going to pick it up. Our State is going to be a lot better off. Every once in a while you do vote your State interest around here, and my State interest is, let's repeal that 4.3 cents and we are going to get 100 percent of the money, not 90 cents, not 82 cents, we are going to get 100 percent of the money. And we don't get the Federal strings, and the Governor and the legislature can decide how they want to spend it. They don't have to spend it on this type of road--primary road, secondary road. They have all the flexibility they want because it's theirs. They have all the authority. They don't have to worry about the differences. Hey, wait a minute, budget authority/budget outlays, this is not easy. And we are going to allocate 100 percent of this money for contract authority, but the outlays won't hit for a number of years. We don't have to worry about that. If we repeal this, the States are going to have 100 percent of the money and they can let the contracts and they can make the decisions and, frankly, I think some of us should have some more confidence in our States. So I rise in support of this amendment. I opposed the 1993 tax increase that was passed by President Clinton at that time. It didn't have a Republican vote, as I recall. I thought that was a mistake. That was a 4.3-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax increase that went into the general revenue. It did not go to highways. A lot of us said we thought that was a mistake. At least in this bill, and I compliment the sponsors, at least we are going to rectify that. Under this bill, assuming the amendment of Senator Mack and myself does not pass, this money at least will be spent for highways. I think that is a giant step in the right direction. I compliment the sponsors, and particularly Senator Graham and Senator Byrd, who were very persistent--I started to say stubborn in their efforts. Because that helped make that happen. That doesn't mean our budget problems are over. We are going to have some challenging times to stay within the caps on the budget, but we will wrestle with that. Hopefully, we will stay on the caps in the budget and will still be able to put 100 percent of the moneys coming in into the highway program and the gasoline tax will stay in the highway program. I think the better fix would be the fix that Senator Mack is proposing, and that is, let's allow the States to have this tax and let's give the States the option. My guess is a strong majority of the States would continue the tax, because all States have very significant needs and demands on their highways for safety, for maintenance, for upgrades. Certainly my State does, and I know that is the action our State would take. So I believe the best solution would be the solution proposed by my colleagues from Florida, and that would be to give the States the option. Let's repeal the 4.3-cent tax. I think it was a mistake in 1993; I still think it is a mistake in 1998. Let's allow that money to go back to the States, and if the States want to enact it, they can, or if they want to return it to the taxpayers, they will have that option to do so as well. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Mack amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise, one, to compliment my colleague, Senator Murkowski from Alaska, for his speech in talking about the United Nations and their increase of the flow of oil. I want to make a couple comments about the administration's handling of the latest crisis with Iraq and express my very strong displeasure with the administration, because I do not think they were very open with Congress. I met with Secretary of State Albright, Secretary of Defense Cohen, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Shelton on numerous occasions when we were debating what our reaction should be to Iraq's noncompliance with the U.N. resolutions allowing arms control inspectors to investigate whether or not they were building up munitions of mass destruction. I know the Senator from Arizona sat in on several of these meetings. As you know, we were in the process of building up armed forces. We were very close to having a military strike. Some people were suggesting different alternatives. The Senator from Alaska said, ``Well, maybe we should curtail the flow of oil. We have a program that is called oil for food that has been going on for years now. Maybe if we tighten that up, it would put an economic squeeze on the Iraqis and maybe they would change their behavior and maybe we wouldn't need to drop bombs to have Saddam Hussein realize the errors of his way and that he needs to comply with the U.N. resolutions.'' I told the Secretary of State that I was upset about the fact that our international coalition has dissipated, if not disappeared. The only real strong supporter we had in this entire venture was Great Britain. We did not have strong, at least visible support, or audible support from the Saudis or from Turkey. We did not have access to the bases in those countries for bombing purposes if there was an airstrike. That bothered me a lot. But what bothers me as much now, when we were discussing different options in lieu of a military strike, and one of the options was curtailing the flow of oil that was discussed in this Capitol with leaders of our Government, our leaders did not tell Congress that they had already agreed in the Security Council, or they were working on an agreement in the Security Council, on February 20, to more than double the amount of oil that would be used in this oil-for-food program--more than doubled. Actually, they go from $2 billion every 6 months to $5.2 billion. They did not tell us that. Most people were not aware of the fact that before the Secretary General flew to Baghdad for his effort to avert or stop the airstrikes and achieve compliance, 2 days before, the U.N. Security Council had raised the amount of the oil-for-food program and more than doubled it. We had those sanctions on since 1991. We restricted the flow of oil to that specific amount of $2 billion for every 6 months, and then all of a sudden, just when we are getting ready to maybe have airstrikes and the U.N. Secretary General was going to go to Baghdad to negotiate a deal--he did not use it for leverage, we basically gave them the carrot--we gave him that incentive before he went to negotiate. It just happens to be a coincidence? I do not think so. And why wasn't the administration forthcoming to Members of Congress and say, ``Well, we've already done this,'' or ``We are now negotiating the U.N. Security Council to do this.'' They did not do that. They did not tell this Senator, they did not tell other Senators that they were in the process of doing it, and that bothers me. It bothers me a lot. I for one had serious misgivings, as I know other Members of this body did, on how far we should go in response and how much of a blank check this Congress should give this administration in dealing with Saddam Hussein, but for them to not tell the Congress or the American people, and the fact that the increase in this oil-for-food program was going forward at this very critical time--just a coincidence, I guess-- is more than an oversight. It is a very serious mistake. A very serious mistake in dealing with Congress and a very serious mistake in our foreign policy as well. So I compliment my colleague from Alaska for bringing this to our attention. And I wish to bring it to the administration's attention that some of us might have been willing to say, hey, let us use the oil-for-food program as an incentive to get him to comply. I do not think we would have said, let us give it to him, and then hope that maybe he would agree with the Secretary General. Maybe the deal was already cut before the Secretary General left. We have not heard that, but maybe that was the case. But in any case, I think the administration was not very forthcoming with Congress. And that is not a very positive sign. I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.